Eddie Boyd Connor v. U.S. Dist. Court

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (SUCCESSIVE PETITION) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. On April 24, 2017, Petitioner, a state inmate, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his convictions in Los Angeles Superior C ourt Case No. BA209131 for murder, torture and arson. Because he previously challenged the same state court judgment in a habeas action that the Court dismissed with prejudice, and because he lacks Ninth Circuit authorization to file a successive petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the new petition. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Order for details.) (mp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

EDDIE BOYD CONNOR,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DIST. COURT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 17-3054-DDP(AGR)

OPINION AND ORDER ON
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
(SUCCESSIVE PETITION)

18
19

On April 24, 2017, Petitioner, a state inmate, filed a Petition for Writ of

20

Habeas Corpus challenging his convictions in Los Angeles Superior Court Case

21

No. BA209131 for murder, torture and arson. Because he previously challenged

22

the same state court judgment in a habeas action that the Court dismissed with

23

prejudice, and because he lacks Ninth Circuit authorization to file a successive

24

petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the new petition.

25

I.

26

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

27

Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the

28

records in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus action in the Central District.

1

In 2004, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this court in Connor v.

2

Runnels, No. CV 04-6866-DDP (FMO) (“Connor I”). He claimed that (1) he was

3

deprived of post-arrest phone calls in violation of due process; (2) insufficient

4

evidence supported the verdicts; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting

5

evidence of his statements to police. (See Connor I, Dkt. No. 37 (R&R) at 6.)

6

On March 1, 2007, the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s

7

recommendation and entered Judgment dismissing Connor I with prejudice on

8

the merits. (See Connor I, Dkt. Nos. 44-45.) The Court denied a certificate of

9

appealability. (Connor I, Dkt. No. 48.) On November 2, 2007, the Ninth Circuit

10
11
12

denied a certificate of appealabilty. (Connor I Dkt. No. 53.)
On May 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for
authorization to file a second or successive petition. (Connor I, Dkt. No. 55.)

13

II.

14

DISCUSSION

15

The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective

16

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA

17

in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997).

18

The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or successive

19

application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant

20

shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district

21

court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court

22

does not have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” petition absent

23

authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152

24

(2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When the

25

AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper

26

authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or successive habeas

27

application.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

28

2

1

Here, the Petition is a second or successive petition challenging the same

2

conviction and sentence imposed by the same judgment of the state court as in

3

Connor I.

4

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

5

Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

6

attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

7

judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”

8

Here, summary dismissal is warranted.

9

III.

10

ORDER

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily

12

dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

13
14
15

DATED: June 13, 2017

DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3